The ONLY word for this is tragic

[P@triot]

Progressives dont understand that less working hours means less money.... They are to fucking lazy.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means workers will demand higher wages or walk. You are so fking stupid. It means consumer pricing is going to drop to sell to workers who make less. It also means more tax revenue with more demand for workers in a workers market. Cons are fking lazy bastards that spend to much time worrying in Foxviews paranoia. LMAO!!! They don't understand the worker. hahahaha

And because of financial demands, the corporations will say "don't let the door hit you in the ass in the way out"...

(I know you're not actually serious about what you're saying here - you're just trying to get a rise out of people)

 

[P@triot]

These are all things you don't like about the law and have nothing to do with its Constitutionality

You also need to look up the difference between a waiver and an exemption

Can I get a waiver from Obamacare? Yes or No?

And a waiver is an exemption you uneducated, ignorant, welfare trailer park buffoon!!!!!

Sure you can
If you have health insurance

Your disingenuous responses just proved that you're on the wrong side of the facts as always (having health insurance makes me compliant with the law - it does not give me a waiver from it and you know it)

 

[P@triot]

One is a $1200 per month ins bill. The other is a $60 per month phone bill. There is no comparison. Are you suggesting that people should do without everything else just to pay an exorbitant health ins premium to private companies? Should people sell their cars stop buying new clothes as well? That's just stupid.

Stop using the phone, eating, and clothing your children, you free-loaders. You should be using that money to pay for health insurance. Those poor CEOs aren't going to be able to buy that second yacht otherwise.

Yes!!!!!

It's amazing - you're actually "baffled" that people should pay for NEEDS before they pay for unnecessary WANTS?!?

So, people should forego food and clothing for health insurance. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your idiocy

You mentioned several items which I responded yes too - obviously food is a necessity just like the insurance. Stop being disingenuous....

 

[JoeB131]

[

They are the problem if they are exempt from a LAW proposed to the ENTIRE NATION. Why should they get a pass when everyone else has to OBEY THE LAW.

aka WHY ARE THEY GRANTED SPECIAL PRIVILEDGES??????? Do you agree with laws that only to apply to some, and not others? Of course you do. Because you are obviously a Liberal Mouth piece that defends its OWN SELF INTEREST.

By the same token, many CORPS have Great Insurance plans, as GOOD OR BETTER THAN UNION PLANS. If Chevron or Exxon applies for a WAIVER do you agree that aren't the problem as well? So step up to the plate and bat Liberal. If you agree Unions and the IRS should be exempt then it is time for the Corps and Businesses to be exempt as well as THEY MEET YOUR STANDARDS AS WELL.

So now EVERYONE STARTS getting exempted by YOUR RULES. How many are left after we ALTER THE LAW to give Waivers to ALL THAT SEEM WORTHY? Yet NATIONWIDE PARTICIPATION is REQUIRED to ENSURE THE LAWS SUCCESS. We need everyone aboard to Ensure that rates drop for EVERYONE. Just not the Unions. Ummmm Not the IRS.....
and so on.

Post your HYPOCRISY TO THE UNIFORMED and not me as it easily recognized. You are nothing more than a Mount piece for LIBERAL PRAVDA.

SECOND issue. I've made no good points about the national database. How about I re-state my opinion. It isn't ANY OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS NOR THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS to force me to put MY PERSONAL INFORMATION OUT. My medical data should be available to those I DEEM WORTHY of NEEDING TO KNOW. Not the IRS, and not the Federal Gov't.

Liberals always talk about people's rights to PRIVACY. Yet simply look the other way when it suits their own SELF SERVING INTERESTS.

Guy, I have to assume you live in a trailer park somewhere, or you wouldn't make such an asspoundingly ridiculous claim about how wonderful Corporate Healthcare plans are.

Now, to be fair, I though mine was wonderful at my last job, until I actually tried to use it for something other than that cold I get every winter.

First, I had to go through a year of very painful tests to get the procedure I needed.

Then I found myself on the "We can't afford to fire you, so we'll try to get you to quit" list.

Then they just paid me a bribe so they could fire me.

Now I'm firing them.

Single Payer, that's the ticket. When the rich are in the same hospital wards as the poor, that's when we fix things.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably is) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

But here's the thing. When it's the end of the day, the pc is finally powered-down, and they are all alone in the dark with their thoughts, I refuse to believe that even the most radical among them believes this is actually good for America. To have some of the most well known corporations refuse to hire, cut back hours, or drop healthcare coverage for their employees all together is simply not good for America. Period. Obamacare has been one of the biggest embarrassing disasters in U.S. history. It was written half-assed, passed by Dumbocrats not one of which actually read it, implemented blindly.

Good post. I agree that Obamacare is a tragedy. We had much better examples to use such as utilized in other 1st World countries in Europe. The AHCA is a mess because the Republicans think as Alan Grayson explained: "Die and die quickly." and wouldn't work with Obama on what he really wanted, what other 1st World countries have, universal healthcare.

And their stupidity was compounded when Bill Kristol showed upon Jon Stewart's show and Stewart turned him into a stuttering fool.


Bill Kristol Extended Interview - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 07/27/09 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

[

They are the problem if they are exempt from a LAW proposed to the ENTIRE NATION. Why should they get a pass when everyone else has to OBEY THE LAW.

aka WHY ARE THEY GRANTED SPECIAL PRIVILEDGES??????? Do you agree with laws that only to apply to some, and not others? Of course you do. Because you are obviously a Liberal Mouth piece that defends its OWN SELF INTEREST.

By the same token, many CORPS have Great Insurance plans, as GOOD OR BETTER THAN UNION PLANS. If Chevron or Exxon applies for a WAIVER do you agree that aren't the problem as well? So step up to the plate and bat Liberal. If you agree Unions and the IRS should be exempt then it is time for the Corps and Businesses to be exempt as well as THEY MEET YOUR STANDARDS AS WELL.

So now EVERYONE STARTS getting exempted by YOUR RULES. How many are left after we ALTER THE LAW to give Waivers to ALL THAT SEEM WORTHY? Yet NATIONWIDE PARTICIPATION is REQUIRED to ENSURE THE LAWS SUCCESS. We need everyone aboard to Ensure that rates drop for EVERYONE. Just not the Unions. Ummmm Not the IRS.....
and so on.

Post your HYPOCRISY TO THE UNIFORMED and not me as it easily recognized. You are nothing more than a Mount piece for LIBERAL PRAVDA.

SECOND issue. I've made no good points about the national database. How about I re-state my opinion. It isn't ANY OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS NOR THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS to force me to put MY PERSONAL INFORMATION OUT. My medical data should be available to those I DEEM WORTHY of NEEDING TO KNOW. Not the IRS, and not the Federal Gov't.

Liberals always talk about people's rights to PRIVACY. Yet simply look the other way when it suits their own SELF SERVING INTERESTS.

Guy, I have to assume you live in a trailer park somewhere, or you wouldn't make such an asspoundingly ridiculous claim about how wonderful Corporate Healthcare plans are.

Now, to be fair, I though mine was wonderful at my last job, until I actually tried to use it for something other than that cold I get every winter.

First, I had to go through a year of very painful tests to get the procedure I needed.

Then I found myself on the "We can't afford to fire you, so we'll try to get you to quit" list.

Then they just paid me a bribe so they could fire me.

Now I'm firing them.

Single Payer, that's the ticket. When the rich are in the same hospital wards as the poor, that's when we fix things.

Spot on. Spot on and high 5. The cost of my spouse to die from cancer in 2009 after 3.5 years of chemotherapy and surgery: $1,300,000.00

That's right. And Empire Blue of New York fought it fucking tooth and nail down to the last drop of blood.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

[

They are the problem if they are exempt from a LAW proposed to the ENTIRE NATION. Why should they get a pass when everyone else has to OBEY THE LAW.

aka WHY ARE THEY GRANTED SPECIAL PRIVILEDGES??????? Do you agree with laws that only to apply to some, and not others? Of course you do. Because you are obviously a Liberal Mouth piece that defends its OWN SELF INTEREST.

By the same token, many CORPS have Great Insurance plans, as GOOD OR BETTER THAN UNION PLANS. If Chevron or Exxon applies for a WAIVER do you agree that aren't the problem as well? So step up to the plate and bat Liberal. If you agree Unions and the IRS should be exempt then it is time for the Corps and Businesses to be exempt as well as THEY MEET YOUR STANDARDS AS WELL.

So now EVERYONE STARTS getting exempted by YOUR RULES. How many are left after we ALTER THE LAW to give Waivers to ALL THAT SEEM WORTHY? Yet NATIONWIDE PARTICIPATION is REQUIRED to ENSURE THE LAWS SUCCESS. We need everyone aboard to Ensure that rates drop for EVERYONE. Just not the Unions. Ummmm Not the IRS.....
and so on.

Post your HYPOCRISY TO THE UNIFORMED and not me as it easily recognized. You are nothing more than a Mount piece for LIBERAL PRAVDA.

SECOND issue. I've made no good points about the national database. How about I re-state my opinion. It isn't ANY OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS NOR THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS to force me to put MY PERSONAL INFORMATION OUT. My medical data should be available to those I DEEM WORTHY of NEEDING TO KNOW. Not the IRS, and not the Federal Gov't.

Liberals always talk about people's rights to PRIVACY. Yet simply look the other way when it suits their own SELF SERVING INTERESTS.

Guy, I have to assume you live in a trailer park somewhere, or you wouldn't make such an asspoundingly ridiculous claim about how wonderful Corporate Healthcare plans are.

Now, to be fair, I though mine was wonderful at my last job, until I actually tried to use it for something other than that cold I get every winter.

First, I had to go through a year of very painful tests to get the procedure I needed.

Then I found myself on the "We can't afford to fire you, so we'll try to get you to quit" list.

Then they just paid me a bribe so they could fire me.

Now I'm firing them.

Single Payer, that's the ticket. When the rich are in the same hospital wards as the poor, that's when we fix things.

You have to be beyond f*cking stupid if you think the rich political leaders will ever share the same hospital wards as you. They will always get better care and leave you in the swamp all the while taking your money to spend on their healthcare.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

[

They are the problem if they are exempt from a LAW proposed to the ENTIRE NATION. Why should they get a pass when everyone else has to OBEY THE LAW.

aka WHY ARE THEY GRANTED SPECIAL PRIVILEDGES??????? Do you agree with laws that only to apply to some, and not others? Of course you do. Because you are obviously a Liberal Mouth piece that defends its OWN SELF INTEREST.

By the same token, many CORPS have Great Insurance plans, as GOOD OR BETTER THAN UNION PLANS. If Chevron or Exxon applies for a WAIVER do you agree that aren't the problem as well? So step up to the plate and bat Liberal. If you agree Unions and the IRS should be exempt then it is time for the Corps and Businesses to be exempt as well as THEY MEET YOUR STANDARDS AS WELL.

So now EVERYONE STARTS getting exempted by YOUR RULES. How many are left after we ALTER THE LAW to give Waivers to ALL THAT SEEM WORTHY? Yet NATIONWIDE PARTICIPATION is REQUIRED to ENSURE THE LAWS SUCCESS. We need everyone aboard to Ensure that rates drop for EVERYONE. Just not the Unions. Ummmm Not the IRS.....
and so on.

Post your HYPOCRISY TO THE UNIFORMED and not me as it easily recognized. You are nothing more than a Mount piece for LIBERAL PRAVDA.

SECOND issue. I've made no good points about the national database. How about I re-state my opinion. It isn't ANY OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS NOR THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS to force me to put MY PERSONAL INFORMATION OUT. My medical data should be available to those I DEEM WORTHY of NEEDING TO KNOW. Not the IRS, and not the Federal Gov't.

Liberals always talk about people's rights to PRIVACY. Yet simply look the other way when it suits their own SELF SERVING INTERESTS.

Guy, I have to assume you live in a trailer park somewhere, or you wouldn't make such an asspoundingly ridiculous claim about how wonderful Corporate Healthcare plans are.

Now, to be fair, I though mine was wonderful at my last job, until I actually tried to use it for something other than that cold I get every winter.

First, I had to go through a year of very painful tests to get the procedure I needed.

Then I found myself on the "We can't afford to fire you, so we'll try to get you to quit" list.

Then they just paid me a bribe so they could fire me.

Now I'm firing them.

Single Payer, that's the ticket. When the rich are in the same hospital wards as the poor, that's when we fix things.

Spot on. Spot on and high 5. The cost of my spouse to die from cancer in 2009 after 3.5 years of chemotherapy and surgery: $1,300,000.00

That's right. And Empire Blue of New York fought it fucking tooth and nail down to the last drop of blood.

So your wife got 1.3 million in healthcare pay outs. WTF do you think her life is going to be worth under a universal plan? Have you NOT heard of the IPAB? What exactly do you f*cking think their job is? Let me give you a hint you moron. It's NOT to have spent 2.6 million on her it's to CUT it to 650k if that.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You have to be beyond f*cking stupid if you think the rich political leaders will ever share the same hospital wards as you. They will always get better care and leave you in the swamp all the while taking your money to spend on their healthcare.

Not really, guy.

I don't worry about the politicians. The politicians want to get votes.

That's why I trust a universal single payer program more than one by a big corporation only concerned about profits.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Spot on. Spot on and high 5. The cost of my spouse to die from cancer in 2009 after 3.5 years of chemotherapy and surgery: $1,300,000.00

That's right. And Empire Blue of New York fought it fucking tooth and nail down to the last drop of blood.

So your wife got 1.3 million in healthcare pay outs. WTF do you think her life is going to be worth under a universal plan? Have you NOT heard of the IPAB? What exactly do you f*cking think their job is? Let me give you a hint you moron. It's NOT to have spent 2.6 million on her it's to CUT it to 650k if that.

I think NTPP is a woman, and she's talking about her husband. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

But in any event, under a universal plan, people live longer, and they spend less. Amongst the G-7 nations, the USA comes in DEAD LAST.

 

[eagle1462010]

[

They are the problem if they are exempt from a LAW proposed to the ENTIRE NATION. Why should they get a pass when everyone else has to OBEY THE LAW.

aka WHY ARE THEY GRANTED SPECIAL PRIVILEDGES??????? Do you agree with laws that only to apply to some, and not others? Of course you do. Because you are obviously a Liberal Mouth piece that defends its OWN SELF INTEREST.

By the same token, many CORPS have Great Insurance plans, as GOOD OR BETTER THAN UNION PLANS. If Chevron or Exxon applies for a WAIVER do you agree that aren't the problem as well? So step up to the plate and bat Liberal. If you agree Unions and the IRS should be exempt then it is time for the Corps and Businesses to be exempt as well as THEY MEET YOUR STANDARDS AS WELL.

So now EVERYONE STARTS getting exempted by YOUR RULES. How many are left after we ALTER THE LAW to give Waivers to ALL THAT SEEM WORTHY? Yet NATIONWIDE PARTICIPATION is REQUIRED to ENSURE THE LAWS SUCCESS. We need everyone aboard to Ensure that rates drop for EVERYONE. Just not the Unions. Ummmm Not the IRS.....
and so on.

Post your HYPOCRISY TO THE UNIFORMED and not me as it easily recognized. You are nothing more than a Mount piece for LIBERAL PRAVDA.

SECOND issue. I've made no good points about the national database. How about I re-state my opinion. It isn't ANY OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS NOR THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS to force me to put MY PERSONAL INFORMATION OUT. My medical data should be available to those I DEEM WORTHY of NEEDING TO KNOW. Not the IRS, and not the Federal Gov't.

Liberals always talk about people's rights to PRIVACY. Yet simply look the other way when it suits their own SELF SERVING INTERESTS.

Guy, I have to assume you live in a trailer park somewhere, or you wouldn't make such an asspoundingly ridiculous claim about how wonderful Corporate Healthcare plans are.

Now, to be fair, I though mine was wonderful at my last job, until I actually tried to use it for something other than that cold I get every winter.

First, I had to go through a year of very painful tests to get the procedure I needed.

Then I found myself on the "We can't afford to fire you, so we'll try to get you to quit" list.

Then they just paid me a bribe so they could fire me.

Now I'm firing them.

Single Payer, that's the ticket. When the rich are in the same hospital wards as the poor, that's when we fix things.

Ridiculous claims. You think places like Chevron or Exxon or any Fortune 500 Companies don't have good health plans? That's ridiculous to you. I know a lot of people who have VERY GOOD PLANS, and the point was for a COMPARISON between the Unions and them.

And you understand the point, even though you dance around it. A LAW should be for EVERYONE, and exceptions shouldn't be added in for the Unions or the IRS.

Single Payer is your goal anyway. Always has and always will be. This BS program was to get the foot in the door before you lost power. Knowing it's a disaster from the get go. So people will later want your Single Payer program. That's what you are pushing and that's your plan.

 

[J.E.D]

And what happens when an anti-constitutional marxist president (such as Obama) refuses to veto it and a Supreme Court stacked with anti-constitutional left-wing radicals like Sotomayor & Kagan - appointed by that same anti-constitutional president - who have never read the Constitution (like yourself) refuse to uphold the Constitution? You just automatically lose all of your rights? Really? You're so thoroughly ignorant that you think that's how it works?

The same SC that just struck down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and gave a slight victory to opponents of affirmative action? Yeah, that SC sure is a bunch of commie liberals.

Holy shit, you're fucking riot

TRY Section 4, numbnuts...

Try section 5, dick-lips

 

[Flopper]

It's not the point. According to the law they need to know whether or not to tax you. You will be required to prove Medical Insurance to the IRS. The Medical Data base is another matter, but of course I'm sure the IRS may take a peek or two.

Now to the other point. The IRS Union has applied for a Waiver. They don't want ACA. Yet they are the ones who get to ENFORCE IT UPON THE PEOPLE.

What happened to UNIFORMITY WITH LAWS TO ALL THE PEOPLE? Oh, I'm sorry Unions are exempt.................................

And the Left calls this shit RIGHTEOUS. You've got to be Freakin Kidding me.

The IRS is asking for an Obamacare waiver??? Please provide some creditable link.

Wow.... I mean, wow.... not even aware that the IRS is begging for an exception to Obamacare. Is there any limit to the lack of knowledge displayed by the left?

Even IRS Chief Doesn?t Want to Switch to Obamacare: Remix Edition | Video | TheBlaze.com

I asked you for a creditable link to support your statement that the IRS Union had asked for a waiver. You gave me a remix of out of context statements protesting a proposed bill by house republican, David Camp to abolish federal employees group health insurance for all federal employees. They are not asking for a waiver, they're protesting Republicans attempt to take away their group health insurance.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Ridiculous claims. You think places like Chevron or Exxon or any Fortune 500 Companies don't have good health plans? That's ridiculous to you. I know a lot of people who have VERY GOOD PLANS, and the point was for a COMPARISON between the Unions and them.

And you understand the point, even though you dance around it. A LAW should be for EVERYONE, and exceptions shouldn't be added in for the Unions or the IRS.

Hey, ever hear of a young lady named Nataline Sarkisyan. Nataline was a 17 year old girl who needed a liver transplant. And her dad worked for Lexus, which no doubt by your standard is a "good company" with a "good plan".

Well, funny thing happened. Her insurance company, Cigna, which paid it's CEO Ed Hanaway an 83 MILLLION dollar retirement package, decided that her transplant was "expiramental". Even though her doctors said it had a 35% of working. Her dad sued Cigna, and the courts ruled that because the contract was between Cigna and Lexus, he and Natline had NO STANDING.

Nataline died.

[

Single Payer is your goal anyway. Always has and always will be. This BS program was to get the foot in the door before you lost power. Knowing it's a disaster from the get go. So people will later want your Single Payer program. That's what you are pushing and that's your plan.

I wanted Single Payer from the Get-Go. Because as long as you have assholes with 8 figure salaries sponging off the system and paying themselves more by denying treatment, you are going to have abuses. As long as you have mid-level managers who decide to keep the health insurance costs down by firing people when they get sick or pregnant, you are going to have abuses.

 

[eagle1462010]

[

Ridiculous claims. You think places like Chevron or Exxon or any Fortune 500 Companies don't have good health plans? That's ridiculous to you. I know a lot of people who have VERY GOOD PLANS, and the point was for a COMPARISON between the Unions and them.

And you understand the point, even though you dance around it. A LAW should be for EVERYONE, and exceptions shouldn't be added in for the Unions or the IRS.

Hey, ever hear of a young lady named Nataline Sarkisyan. Nataline was a 17 year old girl who needed a liver transplant. And her dad worked for Lexus, which no doubt by your standard is a "good company" with a "good plan".

Well, funny thing happened. Her insurance company, Cigna, which paid it's CEO Ed Hanaway an 83 MILLLION dollar retirement package, decided that her transplant was "expiramental". Even though her doctors said it had a 35% of working. Her dad sued Cigna, and the courts ruled that because the contract was between Cigna and Lexus, he and Natline had NO STANDING.

Nataline died.

[

Single Payer is your goal anyway. Always has and always will be. This BS program was to get the foot in the door before you lost power. Knowing it's a disaster from the get go. So people will later want your Single Payer program. That's what you are pushing and that's your plan.

I wanted Single Payer from the Get-Go. Because as long as you have assholes with 8 figure salaries sponging off the system and paying themselves more by denying treatment, you are going to have abuses. As long as you have mid-level managers who decide to keep the health insurance costs down by firing people when they get sick or pregnant, you are going to have abuses.

You Sir or still too Stupid to understand my point. Or you simply DIVERT the topic to your own Mantra.

The point was and still is that NO ONE GROUP, or individuals should get SPECIAL CONSIDERATION under the law. The law should apply to all PERIOD. That is the way laws are supposed to work, unless you allow a Committee to decide who gets a pass and who doesn't.

That is the problem, and the problem with any type of Waivers under the law. That is the problem when COMMITTEE'S can CHANGE THE LAW ON A DIME.

Law's are passed by sitting Congresses and the POTUS, not a committee. THAT'S ONE OF THE POINT'S YOU REFUSE TO SEE.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

You Sir or still too Stupid to understand my point. Or you simply DIVERT the topic to your own Mantra.

The point was and still is that NO ONE GROUP, or individuals should get SPECIAL CONSIDERATION under the law. The law should apply to all PERIOD. That is the way laws are supposed to work, unless you allow a Committee to decide who gets a pass and who doesn't.

That is the problem, and the problem with any type of Waivers under the law. That is the problem when COMMITTEE'S can CHANGE THE LAW ON A DIME.

Law's are passed by sitting Congresses and the POTUS, not a committee. THAT'S ONE OF THE POINT'S YOU REFUSE TO SEE.

No, guy, your point is stupid.

ALL law enforcement is largely based on discretion on those enforcing the rules. It's why cops don't pull over people driving 31 in a 30, but they will pull over the guy who just pulled out of the bar parking lot and is driving too slow.

I have no problem with a committee deciding who is "close enough". Any problem, you clean up the more glaring problems first.

 

[eagle1462010]

Labor Unions: Obamacare Will 'Shatter' Our Health Benefits, Cause 'Nightmare Scenarios' - Forbes

Labor unions are among the key institutions responsible for the passage of Obamacare. They spent tons of money electing Democrats to Congress in 2006 and 2008, and fought hard to push the health law through the legislature in 2009 and 2010. But now, unions are waking up to the fact that Obamacare is heavily disruptive to the health benefits of their members.

Last Thursday, representatives of three of the nation’s largest unions fired off a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, warning that Obamacare would “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”


Congressional Hearing: It's Time To Repeal Obamacare's Employer Mandate
Avik RoyAvik Roy
Contributor

Employers Can Minimize Their Exposure To Obamacare's Penalties By Offering Low-Cost 'Skinny' Coverage
Avik RoyAvik Roy
Contributor

White House To Delay Obamacare's Employer Mandate Until 2015; Far-Reaching Implications For The Private Health Insurance Market
Avik RoyAvik Roy
Contributor

Democrats' New Argument: It's A Good Thing That Obamacare Doubles Individual Health Insurance Premiums
Avik RoyAvik Roy
Contributor
The letter was penned by James P. Hoffa, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Joseph Hansen, international president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; and Donald “D.” Taylor, president of UNITE-HERE, a union representing hotel, airport, food service, gaming, and textile workers.

“When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act,” they begin, “you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat…We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision. Now this vision has come back to haunt us.”

‘Unintended consequences’ causing ‘nightmare scenarios’

The union leaders are concerned that Obamacare’s employer mandate incentivizes smaller companies to shift their workers to part-time status, because employers are not required to provide health coverage to part-time workers. “We have a problem,” they write, and “you need to fix it.”

“The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe,” they continue. “Perverse incentives are causing nightmare scenarios. First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.”

What surprises me about this is that union leaders are pretty strategic when it comes to employee benefits. It was obvious in 2009 that Obamacare’s employer mandate would incentivize this shift. Why didn’t labor unions fight it back then?

Regulations will ‘destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members’

The labor bosses are also unhappy, because of the way Obamacare affects multi-employer health plans. Multi-employer plans, also called Taft-Hartley plans, are health insurance benefits typically arranged between a labor union in a particular industry, such as restaurants, and small employers in that industry. About 20 million workers are covered by these plans; 800,000 of Joseph Hansen’s 1.3 million UFCW members are covered this way.

Taft-Hartley plans, they write, “have been built over decades by working men and women,” but unlike plans offered on the ACA exchanges, unionized workers will not be eligible for subsidies, because workers with employer-sponsored coverage don’t qualify.

Obamacare’s regulatory changes to the small-group insurance market will drive up the cost of these plans. For example, the rules requiring plans to cover adult children up to the age of 26, the elimination of limits on annual or lifetime coverage, and the mandates that plans cover a wide range of benefits will drive premiums upward.

But the key problem is that the Taft-Hartley plans already provide generous and costly coverage; small employers now have a more financially attractive alternative, which is to drop coverage and put people on the exchanges, once the existing collective bargaining agreements are up. That gives workers less reason to join a union; a big part of why working people pay union dues is because unions play a big role in negotiating health benefits.

So the labor leaders are demanding that their workers with employer-sponsored coverage also gain eligibility for ACA subsidies. Otherwise, their workers will be “relegated to second-class status” despite being “taxed to pay for those subsidies,” a result that will “make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable” and “destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.”

‘The law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans’

The leaders conclude by stating that, “on behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.”

President Obama, of course, pledged that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” But the labor leaders say that, “unless changes are made…that promise is hollow. We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions. We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.”

Delay of employer mandate ‘troubling’

These aren’t the only union leaders who have been critical of Obamacare. Kinsey Robinson, president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, said in April that their concerns “have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored,” and that “in the rush to achieve its passage, many of the act’s provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer-sponsored coverage could keep it.”

Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, is unhappy with the White House’s one-year delay of the employer mandate, calling it “troubling.” Hoffa, Hansen, and Taylor note that “this is especially stinging [and] most disconcerting” because the administration has responded to the concerns of businesses, but not those of labor.

But it’s the employer mandate which is responsible for all of the disruptions that Trumka’s labor brothers are complaining about. If we repealed the employer mandate, we’d get rid of the incentive that restaurants and other employers have to cut the hours of part-time employees.



Government health care harms unions

What a lot of people may not realize is that for much of our history, labor unions opposed universal coverage. “Unions…derive some advantage of good will, power, or profit from serving as a financial intermediary in health care,” writes Paul Starr in his Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the American health-care system, The Social Transformation of American Medicine.

If unions’ role in negotiating health coverage is taken over by the government, unions lose a big chunk of their utility. “Employers and unions had both tried to use medical care to strengthen their hand in the battle for workers’ allegiances,” Starr continues.

Labor unions opposed FDR’s half-hearted attempt at universal coverage, and split on Truman’s related proposal. Unions were fine with Medicare and Medicaid, because health benefits for retirees and poor people weren’t as relevant to their interests. It wasn’t until the 1970s that the goals of progressives and labor unions became closely aligned on national health care.

Now, my primary concern isn’t the power and influence of labor unions—rather, it’s the ability of Americans to have access to good jobs and affordable health insurance. And those latter goals are best achieved in a system where people buy health coverage for themselves, instead of getting it through their employers or the government.

That Obamacare encourages more people to buy insurance on their own, in part by incentivizing employers to drop health coverage, is one of the law’s few salutary qualities. It’s unsurprising that this outcome makes labor unions unhappy. But they had every opportunity to take the bill in a different direction in 2009. That they didn’t is no one’s fault but their own.

* * *

Follow @Avik on Twitter and Google+, and The Apothecary on Facebook.

Or, sign up to receive a weekly e-mail digest of articles from The Apothecary.

* * *

UPDATE: In May, Kevin Bogardus of The Hill discussed labor’s dissatisfaction with Obamacare in relation to Taft-Hartley plans, warning of “political repercussions” if people on Taft-Hartley plans remained ineligible for subsidies:

Earlier this month, the subject of how multi-employer health plans would be treated under ObamaCare was brought up at a private May 8 meeting between union leaders and the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee.

“A number of people were making this point at that meeting. People said that their members are upset about this and the more they learn about it, the more upset they are,” said one union official. “I was pretty blunt about it,” said Hansen. “I told them it was a very serious issue. That it was wrong. Taft-Hartley plans should be deemed as qualified healthcare providers and I also said it’s going to have political repercussions if we don’t get this fixed.”

Hansen wants the Obama administration to use its regulatory powers to address the matter; a legislative remedy is all but impossible in the divided 113th Congress.

“When [the Obama administration] started writing the rules and regulations, we just assumed that Taft-Hartley plans — that workers covered by those plans, especially low-wage workers — would be eligible for the subsidies and stay in their plans and they’re not,” Hansen said.

Union anger on multi-employer plans has been percolating for months. In January, The Wall Street Journal reported that UNITE HERE and the Teamsters were pressing the administration. UFCW was also mentioned in that report. Asked why he decided to raise the volume on his worries about ObamaCare, Hansen said he needed to speak out in support of his members…

“What happens in 2014 could be at issue here…There is going to be a lot of disenchantment with how did this happen and who was in power when it happened. No matter what I say, that’s going to be there,” Hansen said. “They are upset already and it hasn’t even taken effect already.”

In a related op-ed, Joseph Hansen complained about the fact that Taft-Hartley plans wouldn’t get special treatment under the law (i.e., that members with this form of employer-sponsored coverage wouldn’t be eligible for ACA exchange subsidies intended for those with no such coverage):

The Obama administration has refused our request, citing legal hurdles. But since the treatment of Taft-Hartley plans is not fully described in the ACA, we believe the regulatory process is exactly the appropriate place to deem them qualified health plans eligible for subsidies. Any objective review of the evidence and reasonable definition of what our funds provide leads to this conclusion.

We’d be open to a legislative fix, but ultimately this is the administration’s responsibility. They are leading the regulatory process. It’s their signature law.

Again, contrary to Hansen’s rhetoric, what he and the other labor leaders are asking for is not equal treatment but special treatment. They want Taft-Hartley plans to be the only form of employer-sponsored health insurance whose members also benefit from subsidies directed to the uninsured. There’s no chance that any such change gets through Congress, given the prohibitive fiscal cost of making 20 million more people eligible for Obamacare subsidies.

 

[eagle1462010]

[q

You Sir or still too Stupid to understand my point. Or you simply DIVERT the topic to your own Mantra.

The point was and still is that NO ONE GROUP, or individuals should get SPECIAL CONSIDERATION under the law. The law should apply to all PERIOD. That is the way laws are supposed to work, unless you allow a Committee to decide who gets a pass and who doesn't.

That is the problem, and the problem with any type of Waivers under the law. That is the problem when COMMITTEE'S can CHANGE THE LAW ON A DIME.

Law's are passed by sitting Congresses and the POTUS, not a committee. THAT'S ONE OF THE POINT'S YOU REFUSE TO SEE.

No, guy, your point is stupid.

ALL law enforcement is largely based on discretion on those enforcing the rules. It's why cops don't pull over people driving 31 in a 30, but they will pull over the guy who just pulled out of the bar parking lot and is driving too slow.

I have no problem with a committee deciding who is "close enough". Any problem, you clean up the more glaring problems first.

aka You don't give a rats arse if some groups get special favors and the laws are interpreted unequally.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Unions are going Bat Chit crazy over the deal. They helped get it passed and NOW FINALLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE BILL IS BS.

So they want special favors so they DON'T HAVE TO GET HIT LIKE THE REST OF THE PEASANTS. Aka the average American.

TOUGH TITTIES UNIONS.

YOU REAP WHAT YOU SEW..............................Time to join the masses and get fucked over by the Fed like everyone else.

 

[JoeB131]

[

aka You don't give a rats arse if some groups get special favors and the laws are interpreted unequally.

Nope, I really don't. I want the cops out catching real criminals, not the guy talking on his cell phone at a stop light. I'm funny like that.